Testing for size and allometric differences in fossil hominin body mass estimation

Uhl, Natalie M.; Rainwater, Christopher W.; Konigsberg, Lyle W.

doi:10.1002/ajpa.22269

Cited by 17 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stature reconstruction is no less complicated that body mass estimation [9,11]. We rely here on stature estimates derived from calibrations using femoral lengths in human pygmies [9,55,56]; this small-bodied reference sample is preferred here for the same reasons discussed with respect to our preferred body mass regressions.…”

Section: Size and 'Shape' In Fossil Homininsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

Jungers

Grabowski

Hatala

et al. 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 17 to a discussion meeting issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'. Body size is a fundamental biological property of organisms, and documenting body size variation in hominin evolution is an important goal of palaeoanthropology. Estimating body mass appears deceptively simple but is laden with theoretical and pragmatic assumptions about best predictors and the most appropriate reference samples. Modern human training samples with known masses are arguably the 'best' for estimating size in early bipedal hominins such as the australopiths and all members of the genus Homo, but it is not clear if they are the most appropriate priors for reconstructing the size of the earliest putative hominins such as Orrorin and Ardipithecus. The trajectory of body size evolution in the early part of the human career is reviewed here and found to be complex and nonlinear. Australopith body size varies enormously across both space and time. The pre-erectus early Homo fossil record from Africa is poor and dominated by relatively small-bodied individuals, implying that the emergence of the genus Homo is probably not linked to an increase in body size or unprecedented increases in size variation. Body size differences alone cannot explain the observed variation in hominin body shape, especially when examined in the context of small fossil hominins and pygmy modern humans.This article is part of the themed issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'.

show abstract

Section: Size and 'Shape' In Fossil Homininsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

Jungers

Grabowski

Hatala

et al. 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of these packages are focused around phylogenetics or population structure, but others (JAGS, OpenBUGS, Stan, WinBUGS) are quite general. We give a brief example from one of these more general packages (OpenBUGS) using published summary statistics by Uhl et al (2013). Uhl et al give the vector of means and the variance-covariance matrix for log scale measurements of body mass, three humeral measurements, and three femoral measurements from 600 modern humans.…”

Section: Using Openbugs For Paleoanthropological Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 10 contains a "model" and "data." The model first states two different priors, one of which can be commented out in order to reproduce either the profile likelihood results or the Bayesian results from Uhl et al (2013). The remaining code gives the multivariate regression of log measurements (humerus minimum midshaft diameter, humerus epicondylar breadth, femur anterior-posterior midshaft diameter, and femur medial-lateral midshaft diameter) on log body mass for the 600 modern humans.…”

Section: Using Openbugs For Paleoanthropological Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"Tau" is the inverse of the residual variance-covariance matrix among bone measurements after "regressing out" log body mass. This matrix as well as the regressions was found directly from the summary statistics from Uhl et al (2013). With access to the raw data one could also model this matrix as having a Wishart prior with low prior precision (see Appendix 2 in the work by Konigsberg et al, 2006) in order to include the uncertainty in calculating the multivariate regression.…”

Section: Using Openbugs For Paleoanthropological Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Figure 11 the full posterior densities are shown using kernel density estimation, and the 0.025, 0.5, and 0.975 quantiles from the 10,000 iterations are shown with vertical dashed lines. For comparison, the reported quantiles by Uhl et al (2013) are shown using filled points.…”

Section: Using Openbugs For Paleoanthropological Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bayes in biological anthropology

Konigsberg

Frankenberg

2013

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we both contend and illustrate that biological anthropologists, particularly in the Americas, often think like Bayesians but act like frequentists when it comes to analyzing a wide variety of data. In other words, while our research goals and perspectives are rooted in probabilistic thinking and rest on prior knowledge, we often proceed to use statistical hypothesis tests and confidence interval methods unrelated (or tenuously related) to the research questions of interest. We advocate for applying Bayesian analyses to a number of different bioanthropological questions, especially since many of the programming and computational challenges to doing so have been overcome in the past two decades. To facilitate such applications, this article explains Bayesian principles and concepts, and provides concrete examples of Bayesian computer simulations and statistics that address questions relevant to biological anthropology, focusing particularly on bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. It also simultaneously reviews the use of Bayesian methods and inference within the discipline to date. This article is intended to act as primer to Bayesian methods and inference in biological anthropology, explaining the relationships of various methods to likelihoods or probabilities and to classical statistical models. Our contention is not that traditional frequentist statistics should be rejected outright, but that there are many situations where biological anthropology is better served by taking a Bayesian approach. To this end it is hoped that the examples provided in this article will assist researchers in choosing from among the broad array of statistical methods currently available. Am J Phys Anthropol 57: 2013. V C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc."The Bayesian approach can have a clarifying effect on one's thinking about evidence." (Koehler and Saks, 1991, p 364) Traditional training in statistical methods for those who go on to become practicing biological anthropologists has focused primarily on classical hypothesis testing. This is apparent in both textbooks geared toward anthropologists in general (Thomas, 1986;Madrigal, 1998;Bernard, 2011) and specialized texts for biological anthropologists (Slice, 2005;D'Aoãut and Vereecke, 2011). While Bayes' Theorem may be mentioned in passing in introductory statistics courses, this is typically restricted to examples of such limited interest that the student has little motivation to recall the theorem, and even less motivation to assume that there may be future value in having learned about Bayes' Theorem. In Bayesian terms, the prior probability that the student will retain Bayes' Theorem is quite low. In contrast, the student and eventual practitioner is likely to learn about confidence intervals, Type I and Type II errors in hypothesis testing, and P-values, and to blithely assume that what they have learned represents the near totality of what is available and useful within modern statistical practice. This represents an unfortunate omission of Ba...

show abstract

Estimating fossil hominin body mass from cranial variables: An assessment using CT data from modern humans of known body mass

Elliott

Kurki

Weston

et al. 2014

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body mass estimates are integral to a wide range of inferences in paleoanthropology. Most techniques employ postcranial elements, but predictive equations based on cranial variables have also been developed. Three studies currently provide regression equations for estimating mass from cranial variables, but none of the equations has been tested on samples of known mass. Nor have the equations been compared to each other in terms of performance. Consequently, this study assessed the performance of existing cranial equations using computed tomography scans from a large, documented sample of modern humans of known body mass. Virtual models of the skull were reconstructed and measured using computer software, and the resulting variables were entered into three sets of published regression equations. Estimated and known body masses were then compared. For most equations, prediction errors were high and few individuals were estimated within ±20% of their known mass. Only one equation satisfied the accuracy criteria. In addition, variables that had been previously argued to be good predictors of mass in hominins, including humans, did not estimate mass reliably. These results have important implications for paleoanthropology. In particular, they emphasize the need to develop new equations for estimating fossil hominin body mass from cranial variables.

show abstract

Testing for size and allometric differences in fossil hominin body mass estimation

Cited by 17 publications

References 53 publications

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

Bayes in biological anthropology

Estimating fossil hominin body mass from cranial variables: An assessment using CT data from modern humans of known body mass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About